coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
7.  The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was born on 6 January 1941 and lives in Dolyns’ka, the Kirovograd Region.
8.  In March 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Dolyns’ka City Court against the State Treasury Department, the Dolyns’ka financial department of the Municipal Council and the Dolyns’ka Tax Police Department, seeking compensation for the damage caused by the unlawful seizure and confiscation of his car.
9.  On 16 August 1999 the Dolyns’ka City Court awarded the applicant UAH 50,000[1] in compensation for moral and material damage.
10.  On 15 March 2000 the Presidium of the Kirovograd Regional Court allowed the protest of the Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine lodged against this decision. It amended the decision of 16 August 1999 and reduced the amount of compensation to UAH 20,000[2].
11.  On 21 June 2000 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the further protest of the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged against the decision of 15 March 2000. The Supreme Court ruled that the UAH 20,000[3] compensation awarded to the applicant by the decision of 16 August 1999, as amended on 15 March 2000, had been reasonably established.
12.  On 20 September 2000 the Dolyns’ska City Court initiated enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case and delivered the relevant writs of execution to the applicant.
13.  On 12 December 2000 the Kyiv City Department of Justice informed the applicant that the State Treasury of Ukraine and its regional departments were responsible for such payments and therefore the writs of execution had to be forwarded to them.
14.  On 18 July 2001 the State Treasury of Ukraine informed the applicant that it was not possible to execute the judgment because there were no relevant provisions in Ukrainian law (i.e. no relevant resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) authorising it.
15.  On 15 May 2002 the National Bank of Ukraine transferred UAH 20,000[4] to the applicant’s account in execution of the judgment of 16 August 1999, as modified by the resolution of the Presidium of the Kirovograd Regional Court on 15 March 2000.
6.  The applicant, Ms Khadra Mohammed Yuusuf, is a Somali national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Sint Maartensdijk (Netherlands).
7.  The applicant, her husband and their two children entered the Netherlands on 10 October 1994. They were given temporary accommodation in a refugee holding centre.
8.  While in the holding centre the applicant twice got into fights, in connection with which she was prosecuted and tried. She was sentenced to a fine of 500 Netherlands guilders (NLG), or ten days' detention in lieu, suspended for two years.
9.  Three further children were born to the applicant and her husband after their arrival in the Netherlands.
10.  The applicant, her husband and their children lodged applications for asylum in the Netherlands or, in the alternative, residence permits on humanitarian grounds. They were initially met with a refusal and pursued their case in objection and appeal proceedings.
11.  On 6 October 2000, the competent administrative authority granted the applicant's husband and the children residence permits on humanitarian grounds; the applicant was refused a residence permit in view of her criminal record. On 14 June 2002 the Regional Court of The Hague confirmed this decision on appeal.
12.  By decision of 31 July 2003 the Head of the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst), writing on behalf of the Minister for Aliens Affairs and Integration, notified the applicant's husband that he would be granted Netherlands nationality.
9.  During the applicant's birth in a public hospital, he suffered a lack of oxygen due to a delayed Caesarean section, which resulted in the permanent paralysis of his arms and legs.
10.  On 30 June 1989 the applicant, represented by his parents, filed a motion for medical malpractice against the three doctors who had assisted at his birth.
11.  On 27 September 1993 the Munich Regional Court (Landgericht), by partial judgment, rejected the applicant's motion with regard to one of the doctors.
12.  On 3 November 1993 the applicant filed an appeal against the partial judgment.
13.  On 26 January 1995 the Munich Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the applicant's appeal.
14.  On 26 March 1996 the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) refused to entertain the applicant's appeal on points of law.
15.  On 4 December 1996 the Regional Court rejected the applicant's remaining claims.
16.  On 8 January 1998 the Court of Appeal confirmed the Regional Court's judgment.
17.  On 8 December 1998 the Federal Court of Justice refused to entertain the applicant's appeal on points of law.
18.  On 18 April 2000 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) refused to entertain the applicant's constitutional complaint.
5.  The applicants were born in 1968 and 1964 and reside in London and Florence, respectively.
6.  C.S. was the owner of a flat in Florence, which she had let to M.P.
7.  On 21 December 1989 the applicants became the owners of the flat.
8.  The applicants served formal notice on the tenant on 21 February 1990, informing him that they intended to terminate the lease when it expired on 30 June 1991, requiring him to vacate the premises by that date and giving him notice to appear before the Florence Magistrate's Court.
9.  In a decision of 18 June 1990, that court formally fixed the termination of the lease for 15 November 1993 and ruled that the premises would have to be vacated by 15 September 1994. The decision became enforceable on 17 July 1990.
10.  On 17 November 1994 one of the applicants, Mrs Ilaria Lo Tufo, signed a statutory declaration to the effect that she urgently needed to recover the use of the flat for her own accommodation.
11. On 25 May 1995 the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
12.  On 3 August 1995 they served notice on the tenant indicating that he would be evicted on 5 October 1995 by a bailiff.
13.  Between 5 October 1995 and 1 October 1998 a bailiff made sixteen attempts to evict the tenant but each attempt proved unsuccessful. The applicants never obtained police assistance for the enforcement of the eviction.
14.  On 21 July 1999, relying on section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the tenant applied to the District Court for a stay of execution of the eviction. The court stayed the execution until 23 September 1999.
15.  In October 2000 the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises and the applicants were able to recover the use of their flat.
8.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in the village of Grodovka, the Donetsk region of Ukraine.
9.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
10.  In 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivsky City Court of the Donetsk Region against the “Novogrodivska” Mining Company - a State-owned enterprise - to recover unpaid salary for the years 1998-2000.
11.  On 3 May 2001 the Novogrodivsky City Court found in favour of the applicant (рішення Новогродівського міського суду Донецької області) and awarded him UAH 7,406.21[1] in salary arrears and compensation for devaluation. The decision became effective on 14 May 2001 and was sent for execution to the Novogrodivsky City Bailiffs’ Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новогродівського міського управління юстиції). However, the decision was not executed, allegedly due to the failure of the Bailiffs’ Service to act in not selling the property of the Mining Company.
12.  In the course of the enforcement proceedings, it was established that on 19 November 1998 the Donetsk Regional Arbitration Court (Арбітражний суд Донецької області) had instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the “Novogrodivska” Mining Company.
13.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivsky City Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodivsky City Bailiffs’ Service for failure to execute the court decision in his favour. On 18 July 2001 the City Court rejected the applicant’s claim, finding no fault had been committed by that Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs’ Service had presented a decision of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region of 30 August 2000 to the respondent company. This decision prohibited the enforcement of judgments against the company by selling its property, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against it.
14.  On 1 November 2001 the Appellate Court of the Donetsk Region dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 18 February 2002 the panel of three judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal.
15.  On 26 December 2001 the ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital was entrenched in the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property. On 10 June 2003 the Constitutional Court found the moratorium to be compatible with the provisions of the Constitution.
16.  On 12 May 2004 the full amount awarded to the applicant was transferred to his bank account, and on 13 May 2004 the enforcement proceedings were completed.
4.  The applicants (husband and wife) were born in 1933 and 1953, respectively, and live in Virovitica, Croatia.
5.  During a military operation undertaken during the Homeland War by the Croatian Army, in August 1995, the applicants' house in Karin Gornji, Croatia was destroyed.
6.  On 10 September 1998 the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Obrovac Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Obrovcu) against the State seeking damages for their destroyed property.
7.  On 6 November 1999 the Amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”) entered into force. The amended legislation provided that all proceedings instituted against the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.
8.  On 1 December 1999 the Obrovac Municipal Court dismissed the applicants' claim. The applicants appealed.
9.  On 8 March 2000 the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) returned the case file to the first-instance court with an instruction to stay the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation.
10.  On 23 March 2000 the Obrovac Municipal Court stayed the proceedings.
11.  On 31 July 2003 new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.
12.  The Government submitted that the applicants' proceedings had resumed pursuant to the above legislation and that they are currently pending before the second-instance court.
The applicants submitted that they had received no decision to resume the proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Novogrodovka, in the Donetsk Region, Ukraine.
5.  In 2001, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovsky City Court of the Donetsk Region against the “Novogrodovskaya” Mining Company - a State-owned enterprise - to recover unpaid salary for the years 1998 to 2000.
6.  On 24 May 2001, the Novogrodovsky City Court found in favour of the applicant and awarded him UAH 3,786.07[1] in salary arrears and compensation. The decision became effective the same day and was sent for execution to the Novogrodovsky City Bailiffs’ Service.
7.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovsky City Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovsky City Bailiffs’ Service for failure to execute the court decision in his favour. On 19 September 2001, the City Court rejected the applicant’s claim, finding that no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs’ Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs’ Service had presented the decisions of the Commercial Court of 30 August 2000 and 14 May 2001 to the respondent company. These decisions prohibited the enforcement of decisions against the company by selling its property, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against it.
8.  On 1 November 2001, the Appellate Court of the Donetsk Region dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 18 February 2002, the panel of three judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal.
9.  On 26 December 2001, the ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital, was entrenched in the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property.
10.  On 23 December 2002 the Donetsk Regional Economic Court prohibited the Bailiffs from enforcing the judgments against the debtor company due to the bankruptcy proceedings. This prohibition was lifted in April 2003.
11.  On 13 January 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service, following the restructuring of the debtor company, replaced the debtor by its legal successor, the Selydivvugillya State-owned Company. The same day the enforcement proceedings were transferred accordingly to another Local Bailiffs’ Service for further actions.
12.  According to the Government, on 12 May 2004 the awarded amount was paid to the applicant in full and the enforcement proceedings were completed.
4.  The applicants were born in 1956, 1970, 1966, 1962 and 1963 respectively and live in the town of Zhovti Vody, Ukraine.
5.  In 1999, all the applicants instituted separate proceedings in the Zheltovodsky Town Court of Dniepropetrovsk Region against their employer, the Elektron-Gaz State-owned company, in order to receive salary arrears and other payments. In 2000-2001, four of the applicants instituted new proceedings in the same court against the same enterprise to receive further payments and compensation.
6.  On 9 March 1999, the court found for Mr Grishechkin and awarded him UAH 4,055.35 (around EUR 580). On 11 September 2001, in the second proceedings, the court found in part for the applicant and awarded him UAH 8,148.98 (around EUR 1,165).
7.  On 30 June 1999, the court found for Mr Kayurov and awarded him UAH 1,801.63 (around EUR 257). On 13 January 2000, in the second proceedings, the court found in part for the applicant and awarded him UAH 1,242.92 (around EUR 178).
8.  On 21 December 1999, the court found for Mr Zavgorodyanskiy and awarded him UAH 4,199.32 (around EUR 600).
9.  On 9 December 1999, the court found for the Ms Tomayly and awarded her UAH 1,642.24 (around EUR 235). On 26 April 2001, in the second proceedings, the court found in part for the applicant and awarded her UAH 851.72 (around EUR 122).
10.  On 9 December 1999, the court found for Ms Lopatina and awarded her UAH 1,125.59 (around EUR 161). On 16 November 2001, in the second proceedings, the court found in part for the applicant and awarded her UAH 812.41 (around EUR 116).
11.  In 2001-2002 the applicants filed several complaints to the different State institutions about the non-enforcement of the above judgments given in their favour. By a letter of 28 March 2002, the applicants were informed by the Dniepropetrovsk Justice Department that the judgments could not be executed due to the operation of the Law of Ukraine “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property” concerning part of the company’s property and the practical impossibility of selling the remainder.
12.  On 7 March 2003 bankruptcy proceedings were instituted against the debtor company.
13.  In March 2004 all judgments given in favour of the applicants were enforced in full and the enforcement proceedings were completed.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine.
5.  In 2001 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Kuybyshevskiy Local Court of Donetsk against his former employer, a State-owned mining company, in order to receive salary arrears.
6.  On 23 January 2002 the court found for the applicant and awarded him UAH 5,089.99[1]. This judgment was not appealed against and came into force on 24 February 2002. On 26 February the Kuybyshevsky Local Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce the above judgment.
7.  By letter of 9 August 2002, the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant about the measures taken by the bailiffs to enforce the judgment and the limitations on enforcement proceedings due to the operation of the Law of Ukraine “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property”.
8.  On 29 October 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service, following the restructuring of the debtor company, replaced the debtor by its legal successor, the Donetskvugillya State-owned Company. The enforcement proceedings were transferred accordingly to another Local Bailiffs’ Service for further actions in November 2003.
9.  On 11 May 2004 the awarded amount was paid to the applicant in full and the enforcement proceedings were completed.
4.  The applicant is a limited liability company with its registered office in Prague.
5.  On 5 September 1997 the applicant lodged a civil action with the Prague Regional Commercial Court (krajský obchodní soud) against the National Property Fund (Fond národního majetku) for unjust enrichment in the amount of 5,288,148 CZK (176,085 EUR). The court received the action on 18 September 1997.
6.  On 22 February 2000 the applicant requested the Regional Commercial Court to schedule a hearing.
7.  On 20 March 2000 the applicant received the Regional Commercial Court’s request of 23 February 2000 to pay the court fees. A confirmation of their payment was delivered to the court on 13 April 2000.
8.  On 28 April 2000 the Regional Commercial Court issued a payment order (platební rozkaz) in favour of the applicant. On 5 June 2000 it was delivered to the parties in the proceedings.
9.  On 11 July 2000 the Regional Commercial Court invited the applicant to submit its observations on the defendant’s appeal, which the court had received on 15 June 2000.
10.  Upon its receipt of the court’s invitation of 27 July 2000, the applicant sent its observations on 15 September 2000. They were delivered to the court on 18 September 2000.
11.  Due to the reorganization of the Czech judicial system, the case was transferred to the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud) by 1 January 2001.
12.  On 10 April 2001 the defendant’s lawyer informed the Municipal Court about his representation of the defendant.
13.  On 29 October 2001 the Municipal Court delivered the applicant’s observations and the court’s request of 23 October 2001 to supplement the defendant’s appeal to the defendant’s lawyer.
14.  After it had received the supplement to the defendant’s appeal on 7 November 2001, on 28 November 2001 the Municipal Court fixed a hearing for 31 January 2002, at which the applicant’s lawyer presented new evidence and proposed an extrajudicial settlement of the dispute. The defendant’s lawyer requested the Municipal Court to adjourn the hearing for and give him a month to study the evidence and the applicant’s proposal.
15.  After having held hearings of 26 September and 5 December 2002, the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s action on 16 December 2002. On 20 February 2003 the judgment was delivered to the applicant’s lawyer.
16.  Upon the applicant’s appeal of 21 February 2003, supplemented on 17 April 2003, the Prague High Court (Vrchní soud) held a hearing on 6 April 2004 and partly granted the applicant’s action on 20 April 2004. On 28 May 2004 the judgment entered into force.
6.  The applicant, Mr Alexandru Dumbraveanu, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Chişinău.
7.  The applicant is a policeman. According to the Law on Police Forces of 18 December 1990 the local administration is obliged to provide policemen with apartments within one year of their commencing employment. On an unspecified date the applicant filed an official request with the Municipal Council for an apartment. The Municipal Council rejected the request and the applicant brought a civil action against it.
8.  On 22 June 1998 the Chişinău District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the Municipal Council to provide him with an apartment.
9.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the applicant lodged an action with the Centru District Court seeking a change in the manner of enforcement of the judgment of 14 March 1997. In particular, he claimed money from the Municipal Council in lieu of an apartment.
10.  On 8 September 2000 the Centru District Court decided to change the manner of enforcement of the judgment of 22 June 1998 and ordered the Municipal Council to pay the applicant 180,357 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 16,800 euros (EUR) at the time), the market value of the apartment. The Municipal Council filed an appeal against that decision.
11.  On 8 November 2000 the Chisinau Regional Court allowed the appeal and in a final judgment reduced the amount from MDL 180,357 to MDL 111,240 (the equivalent of approximately EUR 10,500 at the time).
12.  At the Municipal Council’s request, the Prosecutor General’s Office filed an application for annulment with the Supreme Court of Justice, but the application was dismissed on 4 April 2001.
13.  The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant which the Bailiff failed to enforce.
14.  On an unspecified date the applicant wrote to the Ministry of Justice, complaining about the non-enforcement of the decision. In a letter addressed to the Municipal Council on 17 March 2003, the Ministry of Justice warned the former to execute the court judgment.
15.  The judgment of 8 November 2000 was enforced on 11 September 2003.